Surface processes on Early (Noachian) Mars

MSL Landing Site Workshop Monday, 16 May, 2011

Surface processes on Early (Noachian) Mars

3.7 Ga


Explosive volcanism: An dominant contributor to the martian surface

• Virtually every eruption (regardless of composition) of volatile-bearing magma accompanied by fine-grained pyroclastic deposit

• The Earth’s sedimentary budget contains a minimum of 30% volcaniclastic contributions (Garrels & Mackenzie, 1971)

• Explosive volcanism on Mars common:– Lower atm pressure– Greater gas

exsolution– Enhanced magma

disruption– Higher volatile

content

• Pyroclastic deposits– 100x finer grained– Greater distances– Clouds rise 5x

higher


Explosive volcanism on Mars: Observational support

• Volcanic ash deposition important in forming Friable layered deposits (FLDs)– Mapped by Schultz &

Lutz (1988) & Hynek et al. (2003) across equatorial regions 1000s km apart

• FLDs fine-grained & thinly layered– Distributed over 105

to 106 km2

– Mostly post-Noachian• Additional support for pyroclastic activity from Home Plate in Gusev Crater

• Many additional reports (Mouginis-Mark, 1982, 2002; Edgett, 1997; Greeley & Crown, 1990, etc.)

• Robbins et al. (2010) identify transition from explosive to effusive volcanism at about 3.5 Ga from survey of major calderas


Usually, we associate the products of explosive volcanism with either:


The origin of smectite in pyroclastic deposits

• Most smectite in pyroclastic deposits & soils is hydrothermally formed within volcanic vents and entrained upon eruption– Mineralogy, geochemistry, 18O & D show elevated formation

temperatures– Smectite is Fe/Mg-rich; including saponite & nontronite– Occurs with minor/trace chlorite, biotite, vermiculite, and C/S,

etc.– Hydrothermal smectite deposited w/ash in localities across globe

• Mt. St Helens 1980 deposits (Pevear et al., 1982)– Largely andesitic/basaltic composition– Saponite in the unaltered ash reaches 10 vol. % of bulk,

increasing with distance from vent– Total deposits >25% lithic material (i.e., entrained vent rocks)

• Mt. Usu, Japan (Mizota & Faure, 1998)– Nontronite present at >10 vol. % in unaltered ash– Water-saturated zone under vents driving hydrothermal activity


Hydrous magmatism & hydrothermalism: Hand in hand

• Every group of meteorites preserves evidence for magmatic hydrothermalism

• Abundant geochemical evidence for early hydrous volcanism

• When magmatic volatiles were high, degassing & hydrothermalism results• Petrogenetic studies infer the earliest magmas were also the most volatile rich

• Thus, magmatic hydrothermal activity can be inferred to be directly proportional to volcanism

• Meteoric water may also contribute, but constraints are less clear pre-3.5 Ga


The pyroclastic contribution to early martian sedimentary budget

• Significant volcanism in pre-/mid-/late-Noachian (e.g., Tharsis)

• Magma-water/ice interactions would have produced:Hydrothermal systems– Dependent on nature of

interaction, volatile content, crustal H2O reservoir

– Generate significant Fe/Mg-smectite & lesser chlorite, C/S, biotite, etc.

– Clays would be transported & concentrated in air fall deposits

Fine-grained pyroclastics– Entrainment of atmosphere could

alter syn-eruptive ash– Distinct post-eruptive Al-rich

weathering signal• The total amount of pyroclastic clay delivery to surface is a function of:− Frequency & extent of magmatic-hydrothermal & syn-eruptive alteration

(dependent on volatiles)− Efficiency of explosive delivery & transport

• Volumetrically significant flux of newly formed clay available for impact/physical reworking


A model for pyroclastic contributions to surface mineralogy


How much & how far? Ash transport and particle size segregation

• Atmospheric winds could carry <10m particles several 1000 km

• Ordovician ash beds in E. US distributed over 5 x 106 km2

• Significant atmospheric residence time (up to 4 years on Earth)

• Smectite & other clays present in ash concentrated in the <2m fraction w/ increasing transport distance– e.g., Mt. St. Helens ash deposits

as a function of distance from source


Implications for “layered” phyllosilicates (e.g., Mawrth Vallis)

• Mawrth Vallis:– Aerially extensive (>106 km2)– Mineralogy consistent within

stratigraphic units– Temporally significant

• Buried impact craters

– Compositional stratigraphy observed elsewhere• Eridania, Noachis, Valles Marineris

• A significant pyroclastic contribution is capable of explaining:– Persistent & extensive

distribution– Disparity between TES &

OMEGA/CRISM– Fe/Mg assemblage: Largely derived

from volcanic/impact hydrothermal sources

– Al assemblage: Largely derived from weathering pre-deposited fine-grained glassy tephra


A model for rock accumulation on early Mars (esp. at Mawrth)

• Heterogeneous physical processing; consistent mineralogy– Rock accumulation primarily

driven by impact processes, eolian reworking

– Predicts heterogeneous mineralogical distribution

– Continuous pyroclastic delivery & eolian reworking homogenizes mineralogy in time & space

• Caveats:– Does not exclude other modes

of neoformation, but may well be dominant

– Abundances: do we understand clay production in hydrothermal & magma-volatile interaction on Mars? We may be lacking suitable analogs.


Conclusions (1)

• Weathering of pyroclastic material produces a distinct Al-rich assemblage dominated by: halloysite, imogolite, opaline SiO2, kaolinite and lesser Al-smectite (e.g., beidellite)

• Pyroclastic delivery of clay-bearing material is a common source of Fe/Mg- smectite (and other Fe/Mg 2:1 phases) in ash fall tephra deposits on Earth

• Volcanic-hosted hydrothermal systems on Mars, or syn-eruptive alteration of volatile-rich pyroclastics could represent a significant flux of Fe/Mg clay to the early surface of Mars

• Ash transport is an effective mechanism for Fe/Mg clay contribution to the early martian sedimentary record:– Provide significant mineralogical overprint to complex processes

• If true, a large portion of clay mineralogy on Mars may record the spatial and temporal history of volatile-magma interaction during the earliest portion of martian history


Conclusions (2)

• This model does not require a significant role for surface water on early (Noachian) Mars. Later alteration of upper stratigraphy (presuming an Fe/Mg-rich protolith) could date to any post-depositional period.

• We view magmatic hydrothermalism (& explosive volcanism) as waning in response to decreasing magmatic volatile load and perhaps decreasing subsurface water/ice

• We view the earliest supracrustal rocks on Mars as receiving two dominant contributions to mineralogy:

1. Impacts– Require pre-existing water to drive hydrothermalism– May suffer from low-temperature overprinting as system “dies out”

2. Pyroclastic volcanism– Records conditions of magmatic hydrothermalism– Mineralogical contributions & delivery will correlate with high

volatile load

• Eolian mixing will act to homogenise these two components

Date post:	18-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	johnda
View:	40 times
Download:	0 times

Surface processes on Early (Noachian) Mars

Documents